PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 5
Researchers have developed a membrane that quickly removes(48 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(12 more words not shown)
- Aaddress the expense(10 more words not shown)
- Baddress the possibility(7 more words not shown)
- Cexplain the technology(8 more words not shown)
- Dtake into account(10 more words not shown)
- Etake into account(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How much does the new technology cost?
The energy savings make sense on the facts we're given. Removing oxygen kills bacteria, so the refrigerator needn't keep food as cold to prevent spoilage. Maintaining a less-cold interior would save energy. But the conclusion goes beyond the electricity bill: these refrigerators will be far less expensive overall, even over the long run.
What we’re looking for
Imagine a membrane that is enormously expensive to build or install. Saving money on power every month wouldn't automatically make up for that initial expense. Even substantial savings can be outweighed by another large cost. For the flaw question, I'd look for the missing cost of making the new refrigerator or adding the technology to an existing one. We know one part of the expense goes down; we don't yet know what happens to the total.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The argument never addresses the expense of building or refitting the refrigerator with the oxygen-removing technology. Those costs belong in the same overall comparison as the energy savings.
“Over the long run” doesn't make the initial cost disappear. We'd still need to know whether the savings are large enough to make up for it. The new model might save power throughout its useful life and still cost more overall. A identifies the missing part of the calculation.
- B
Consumers might feel uncomfortable with an unfamiliar refrigerator, but the conclusion isn't that they will like it or buy it. It is that the refrigerator will cost less. Without some connection between the discomfort and expense, this does not identify the gap between lower energy bills and lower total costs.
- C
We can accept the stated function of the membrane without knowing the scientific details of how researchers developed it. The argument's financial inference would still be incomplete even with a full explanation of the technology. We need its cost, not a history or technical account of its invention.
- D
The passage already compares the cooling needed to prevent spoilage: the new technology permits a warmer interior. It need not deny that current refrigerators preserve food effectively. The problem is that lower cooling costs do not settle the price of adopting the new system. D doesn't address that missing expense.
- E
Spoiled food can be inconvenient, but the conclusion concerns the refrigerators' expense. Describing the inconvenience of current models would not tell us how much the new technology costs to build or install. Even a more convenient refrigerator can be more expensive. The missing financial comparison remains.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.